General News JK Rowling - Scottish independence carries "serious risks"

I'm not sure if JK Rowling is an expert on this matter.

 

I don't know, but writing books about teenaged wizards certainly doesn't count.

 

Nor is anyone else, that's part of the problem with this debate.

I think the Yes campaign is better organised and more positive, but they are looking at independence through rose tinted spectacles.

I've listened carefully to the arguments for and against independence and I'm not persuaded by the overly positive stance of the Scottish Nationalists. They are speculating and making far too many assumptions about the position post independence. It's all very naive and I really worry about what will happen if the Scottish people get carried away on a tide of patriotic fervour in the days leading up to the referendum. The risks are supreme and JK Rowling is right, in my opinion, to make her case.

 

The Bank of Scotland and RBS Banking Group were horribly exposed during the world financial crisis and I cannot imagine any situation where an independent Scotland would have been strong enough to prop up these two banks. Hell, it's been hard enough for the UK to absorb the combined level of debt, which ran into many billions of pounds.

Aside from the arguments about currency and EU and NATO membership, one of the big questions that I see, is how much of the UK's national debt will a post independent Scotland take up? Will they gladly take on the outstanding debt of those two Scottish banks for example?

As the days count down to the vote all of these (and many more) crucial issues are unresolved. It's rather like standing in front of a train, hoping it will stop before it slams into you.

 

JK Rowling is simply highlighting the risks involved, and it's no surprise that she has been the target of abuse and vitriol on Twitter. This is the problem with the 'Yes' contingent - they ask supporters of the Better Together campaign for reasons against independence, and when they are cited, and the risks explained, they are dismissed as scaremongering (too wee, too poor, too stupid). The Better Together campaign might rely too heavily on the uncertainties of Scottish independence, but they are perfectly valid, and worthy of discussion.

Scottish independence is no guaranteed success, and it's based entirely on ifs, buts and maybes - not to mention that the SNP's plans for a post-independence Scotland are incredibly vague and rely heavily on ideas that have been dismissed already - i.e the SNP still seem to believe that a currency union will actually happen, even though the Chancellor has already made it clear that no such thing will happen as it would not be in the UK's best interests. They also seem to believe that Scotland will inherit EU membership, but they will have to reapply, and they will be obliged to adopt the Euro as their currency, making their plan for a Sterling currency union even more ridiculous than it already is. Oh, and Scotland being outside the EU will result in border controls between England and Scotland, so Scots will no longer be able to visit their relatives in England on a whim, and vice-versa, since they will be living in a foreign country.

Linco makes a good point about RBS - there isn't a chance in hell an independent Scotland would have been able to prop failing banks on its own without outside help - just look at Ireland and the mess that ensued there.

I think most people in the UK will argue that our political system needs reformation, or that greater devolution on a regional level would be beneficial, but Scotland remaining part of the UK guarantees perks that Scotland already enjoys. Scotland leaving the UK opens up new risks - risks people and global organisations have already highlighted (risks that the SNP ignore or dismiss).

And yeah, it's funny that some people talk of freedom, even though Scotland entered a voluntary union with England because of its own financial mess. It wasn't even a union England wanted to begin with. In any case, regardless of the outcome, there will be a lot of hostility and tension for years to come as a result of this referendum. Divide and conquer indeed.

 

She has lived in Scotland for 21 years, thats more than many people who will be allowed to vote (the voting age is 18 right?).

She is also a damn sight more intelligent than many voters, so I'd hazard a guess she has done her research before giving away £1million of her money to a pressure group.

The yes/no decision is a personal choice, but what I am confident she is an informed voter and so is welcome to her decision.

---------- Post added 14th Jun 2014 at 10:00 AM ----------

And I think that would lead to quite a lot of resentment and an almost mini "cold war" between the states should Scotland gain independence. Obviously Scotland wants a currency union, and Salmond has already threatened to default on the UK national debt if they can't have it. I just fear there would be a great degree of animosity and political fighting caused by independence, at least for the immediate future.

I think that is the big one for me. The Yes campaigns argument for the financial strength of an independent Scotland rests largely on projected oil revenue.

The North Sea oil reserves are estimated to last another 40 years, or lets be extremely generous and say 100 years at a push with new technologies leading to less oil consumption. But then what? Looking 40-100 years to the future does not in my eyes seem long-term enough when you are talking about something as drastic as establishing an independent state.

Also a large proportion of Scotland's current revenue stream comes from UK companies who have offices or headquarters currently based in Scotland. There is no guarantee that these will stay post-Indendependence.

 

Some good points to respond to:

The voting age has been lowered to 16 for this referendum.

Defaulting on Scotlands share of the UK debt would be suicide. More drivel from the Scottish Nationalists who are making it up as they go along.

There are some companies, headquartered in Scotland, that will certainly pull out in the event of a yes vote. Standard Life plc has already talked about quitting and is drawing up plans to leave.

 

Its her money and she has the right to support whatever she wants.

I didn't see the nationalists complaining when those lottery winners chucked a few million at Salmond.